dcoughlin added inline comments.
================
Comment at: lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/DynamicTypePropagation.cpp:587
if (TrackedType &&
+ !isa<ExplicitCastExpr>(CE) &&
!ASTCtxt.canAssignObjCInterfaces(DestObjectPtrType, *TrackedType) &&
----------------
xazax.hun wrote:
> george.karpenkov wrote:
> > Should it check that we are actually casting to the right type? Also it's a
> > bit strange that isa<> check on line 569 did not catch this case, maybe
> > that if- branch should be generalized instead?
> I agree, line 569 supposed to handle this case and also update the state
> accordingly.
For suppressive casts, I am worried about updating the state to reflect
destination type.
Programmers use a suppressive cast when they know a better invariant about the
contents of a collection -- at a particular point in time -- than the analysis
infers. It is not a promise that the invariant will hold at all later program
points. I'm particularly worried that adding one suppressive cast would require
the programmer to add other, different suppressive casts later in the program.
For this reason I don't think it make sense to update the specialized type args
map with the destination type of the cast.
Gabor: what do you think about the alternative of always removing the inferred
specialized type args information for an unspecialized symbol on an explicit
cast? After an explicit cast we would essentially treat the value as
unspecialized and so not warn about later uses until the analyzer infers more
information. Essentially this would be an acknowledgement that an explicit cast
means the programmer had an invariant in mind that couldn't be represented in
the type system and so the analyzer should back off.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D39711
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
